Summers would be the first Fed Chairman to fall asleep at his own meetings.

---

Capital Account

Text From RT

Lauren Lyster and producer Demetri Kofinas discuss some of the latest rumors regarding who will take over at Treasury and at the Federal Reserve if and when Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke leave their posts after the election.

Come January 2014, it looks like Bernanke will no longer be the head of the Fed. The Chairman has told close friends that he won't seek a third term, even if Obama is re-elected. According to Andrew Ross Sorkin, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers would be at the top of Obama's list to replace Bernanke.

However if Romney is elected, Glenn Hubbard would be at the top of the list for Fed Chairman or Treasury Secretary. Plus Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Chairman, spoke out against Too Big To Fail Banks during a speech at a meeting of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA).

Remember that Bernanke did what he did on purpose and the CJ punks Bush43 picked to enforce the law in the FTC and SEC are still at their posts, collecting over $200,000.00 PER YEAR FOR NOT PROSECUTING.

Thought of you when I read the attached report from Catherine Austin Fitts, who writes very credibly and from a POV high within the Bush Admin. It's from 2001 and describes, among other things, the looting of the U.S. via fraudulent mortgages using the illegal drug trade as a major conduit for cash. She also predicts the bailouts--well before anyone else I know of.

That Forbes article, which attempts to blame the financial crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act, is recycled horseshit that originates from Wall Street and is parroted by media dupes.

It originated with Peter Wallison, a well-known shill for Wall Street, whose fictional account of the crisis, which doesn't even mention fraud, attempts to shift blame from the fraudulent criminals on Wall Street onto a... statute. William Black, the senior prosecutor during the S&L crisis, took Wallison's exculpatory PR fantasy apart at the joint.

The crisis got kicked off when the valuations of mortgage-backed securities were exposed as not being anywhere NEAR their stated value and began to trade for pennies on the dollar. The rot behind MBS assets is fraud, which is how MBS buyers were induced to purchase piles of shit at par value in the first place. A statute did not enter into these fraudulent transactions, you may rest assured.

The notion that the government "forced" bankers into multi-hundred-dollar pay packages for selling this dreck by the trillions is ludicrous. First, the bankers, motivated by astronomical pay packages ($500+ million for Mozilo, anyone?) did this all by themselves, and indeed people like Wallison, in the early stages of the crisis, actively berated Fannie and Freddie for not making MORE loans to low-income home buyers. Second, the government hasn't prosecuted a single high-ranking executive, so the leverage that the government had in "forcing" these fraudsters into making loans is wholly imaginary.

The writer concludes by arguing against regulation. Let's be clear about what "less regulation" means to Wall Street: no restraints on the amount of fraud to be perpetrated. It's tantamount to aruging that no cops should patrol a beat that is absolutely riddled with crime. And we KNOW to a certainty that crimes were committed on Wall Street because Alan Greenspan said so two years ago:

More specifically, we know that fraud in the very MBS that set of the crisis was widespread since Citi's chief risk officer, testified before Congress under oath that Citi was selling MBS that were defective as measured by Citi's OWN SPECIFICATIONS.

Whenever you see an article about the causes of the crisis, search on the words "crime" and "fraud." If it's not there, you can throw it in the trashcan knowing that the writer is completely full of shit.

Let’s clarify the causes of current circumstances. Ask yourself the following questions about the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act and/or the role of Fannie & Freddie:

• Did the 1977 legislation, or any other legislation since, require banks to not verify income or payment history of mortgage applicants?

• 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. How was this caused by either CRA or GSEs ?

• What about “No Money Down” Mortgages (0% down payments) ? Were they required by the CRA? Fannie? Freddie?

• Explain the shift in Loan to value from 80% to 120%: What was it in the Act that changed this traditional lending requirement?

• Did any Federal legislation require real estate agents and mortgage writers to use the same corrupt appraisers again and again? How did they manage to always come in at exactly the purchase price, no matter what?

• Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting (AU) systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible?

• What about piggy back loans? Were banks required by Congress to lend the first mortgage and do a HELOC for the down payment — at the same time?

• Internal bank memos showed employees how to cheat the system to get poor mortgages prospects approved that shouldn’t have been: Titled How to Get an “Iffy” loan approved at JPM Chase. (Was circulating that memo also a FNM/FRE/CRA requirement?)

• Did the GSEs require banks to not check credit scores? Assets? Income?

• What was it about the CRA or GSEs that mandated fund managers load up on an investment product that was hard to value, thinly traded, and poorly understood.

• What was it in the Act that forced banks to make “interest only” loans? Were “Neg Am loans” also part of the legislative requirements also?

“It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did.”

God, the effing CRA. Just a couple months ago I was talking to a friend and neighbor (conventional conservative) who was going on about Obama's anti-business policies, blah blah blah. Anyhow, I started telling him about the financial crisis and it was fricking NEWS to this guy (very smart, thoroughly decent) that Obama had practically fellated Wall St. and that the government subsidized almost the entire investment/commercial banking space for the past three years. Moreover, he admitted that he had no idea that most of the subprime mortgages were written by institutions NOT covered by the CRA. In fact, he said "Wow, I didn't know that. That's really interesting." I also told him that if he really thought I was BS-ing him about the CRA, he could call Barry Ritholtz and collect his $100K. As far as I know, Barry still has that $100K.

But it just goes to show how poisoned the information environment is on this stuff. Just last week my wife was at a girls night and the talk turned to banks and bailouts. The wife of my friend above^ said "My husband says they should have just let the banks fail because it wouldn't have been the end of the world..." (Bravo for him!). But one of the other ladies said that she was glad they did the bailouts because the ATM's would stop working and everyone would lose their savings and even the government might have gone bankrupt(!????) if we didn't bail out the banks. So, it's just totally screwed up that otherwise intelligent people believe utter nonsense because they are ignorant about banking and the financial system. I don't have a point really except to say ARRRGGGH!!!

The more we can wake America up to this treason the faster we can end this criminal empire.

---

Yes agreed. But taking everything back to the Rothschilds, Bilderberg and NWO actually HURTS the awareness movement. It makes our side look like a bunch of nuts. Trust me, there's enough fraud all around (front and center) that we don't need to go to the Rothschild connection all the time.

There was a movie that Gibson had made in which he stole some money, was double crossed, and set about trying to get his money back. It wasn't that much. To the point, he kept on talking about the "guy" The guy who made the decisions. He worked up the food chain until he got his money. Anyway, there is a chain of command, just like in the military. POTUS ain't the top of the food chain. Everyone knows that. The question is, who is the top of the food chain. It isn't me. It isn't you. So who is?

Summers really needs to be questioned about his stake in First Wind/UPC.

-----------------------------------------------------------

A little OT but worth noting:

Awhile back there was much talk about Gov. Deval Patrick getting a cabinet position in the Obama administration. I still believe that is going to happen but a snafu may have just occurred. Here is a little news about Patrick's second in command.

The state agency that oversees campaign finance has determined that Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray and his political committee violated state law by accepting campaign contributions that were illegally raised by former Chelsea Housing Authority director Michael McLaughlin.

Michael Sullivan, the director of the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, sent the findings in a Sept. 19, 2012, letter to Attorney General Martha Coakley.

In the letter, Sullivan said there was evidence McLaughlin violated laws prohibiting political fundraising by public employees, and that in receiving the money, Murray and his committee also violated the law.

A campaign spokesman for Murray said the lieutenant governor asked for the probe and is fully cooperating

A spokesman for Coakley said the issues in the letter are under investigation.

On Wednesday, federal prosecutors charged McLaughlin with falsely reporting his salary to the government.

Iris Mack, a derivatives researcher, sought a quieter life. Mack joined Harvard Management Co., a privatized company which managed the university’s endowment fund in 2002. To her surprise, she found the Harvard endowment fund was not so staid. In fact, it was involved in the same speculative trading as her former employer, Enron. Worse, after she spoke up about it to Harvard President Larry Summers’ chief of staff, Marne Levine, she was fired four months later for raising the subject. No academic freedom in finance, I guess.